Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Fisher v. Edgerton, 336 P.3d 167.

26 citing documents.

State Farm v. Balzan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State Farm v. Balzan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 11 n.4 (App. 2014) (“The court of appeals’ vacated decision has no precedential value.”).
Peterson v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Peterson v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See Wales, 249 Ariz. at 270, ¶ 30 (recognizing that settled federal securities law is persuasive for interpreting state securities law with substantially similar provisions); ¶¶ 32–33 (App. 2014) (recognizing that Seventh Amendment does not apply to the states and that Seventh Amendment caselaw is persuasive regarding the construction of the state constitutional jury trial right).
Moore v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Moore v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
3 ¶ 17 n.7 (App. 2014) (“We consider .
Williams v. McLaughlin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Williams v. McLaughlin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In Re $200.00 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In Re $200.00 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In re $2,390 in U.S. Currency, ¶ 5 (App. 2012); ¶ 7 (App. 2014).
Duff v. Lee 439 P.3d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
Duff v. Lee 439 P.3d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
Birmingham , 96 Ariz. at 110 , ; see also Fisher , , ¶ 34, (consistent with Graf , state has "power to set *1208 reasonable prerequisites to exercise the right to a jury trial, provided the right is not eliminated"); Valler , 190 Ariz. at 393 , 949 P.2d at 53 (constitutional nature of right to jury trial).
Apodaca, Sr. v. Keeling 439 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Apodaca, Sr. v. Keeling 439 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶9 The Apodacas argue that the Rule 77(h) analysis “should be done on a party-by-party basis.” for support.
State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“Even if the classification results in some inequality, it is not unconstitutional if it rests on some reasonable basis.” ¶ 28, (citation omitted).
Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern, Sines 366 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern, Sines 366 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Panos 366 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Panos 366 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Thus, “[e]ven if the classification results in some inequality, it is not unconstitutional if it rests on some reasonable basis.” ¶ 28 (App. 2014) (quoting Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., ).
State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
VII (right to a jury trial); Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 23 (same); ¶ 35 (App. 2014) (“laws affecting the right to trial by jury” may not “significantly burden or impair the right to ultimately have a jury determine the issues of fact”).
Boisson v. Arizona Board of Regents 343 P.3d 931 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Boisson v. Arizona Board of Regents 343 P.3d 931 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
75 n. 2 ¶ 9, , 171 n. 2 (App.2014).
Granville v. Howard 335 P.3d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Granville v. Howard 335 P.3d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Fisher v. Edgerton, 1 CA-CV 13-0428, , , 2014 WL 4853838 (Ariz.App.